Finding Tiktaalik: Neil Shubin on the Evolutionary Step from Sea to Land
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ก.พ. 2013
- Professor Neil Shubin talks about the discovery of Tiktaalik and one of the greatest evolutionary events in Earth's history: when the very first fish ventured out onto land.
You can buy Neil's book "Your Inner Fish: The amazing discovery of our 375-million-year-old ancestor" now - geni.us/a2fNf8
Widely known as the "fishapod", Tiktaalik roseae is a 375 million year old fossil fish discovered by a team of six palaeontologists in the Canadian Arctic in 2004.
Tiktaalik looks like a cross between the primitive fish it lived amongst and the first four-legged animals, a group called "tetrapods". Derived from "tetra-", meaning four, and "-pod", meaning foot, all animals that descended from these pioneer amphibians, including us, can be called tetrapods.
Tiktaalik lived about 12 million years before the first tetrapods (which are approximately 363 million years old). With the earliest appearance in the fossil record of tetrapod features in a fish, the discovery has become a key piece of evidence in the transition from life in water to life on land.
Watch more footage from the interview with Neil Shubin:
• Finding Tiktaalik (Add...
The Ri is on Twitter: / ri_science
and Facebook: / royalinstitution
and Tumblr: / ri-science
Our editorial policy: www.rigb.org/home/editorial-po...
Subscribe for the latest science videos: bit.ly/RiNewsletter
Product links on this page may be affiliate links which means it won't cost you any extra but we may earn a small commission if you decide to purchase through the link. - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![[FULL EP.14] เซียนหรั่ง สอน มาร์ชจุ จับปูนา ฮากระจาย | เฮ็ดอย่างเซียนหรั่ง | One Playground](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/M8mPjd_T2lo/mqdefault.jpg)
I took physical oceanography and my professor mentioned Tiktaalik and I thought it was super cool but distracted by ocean waves and offshore breezes I left it in the back of my mind. As I was doing my summer homework assignment for AP Bio, which was to read My Inner Fish, I soon realized that you were in fact taking about the same amphibian that my professor was so excited about. I absolutely adore your book and I feel very special that I learned about Tiktaalik and it's meaning before I read My Inner Fish as I was able to understand how magnificent of a discovery you and your crew were about to make.
I love Shubin's enthusiasm here, it's such a joy to see.
Not to stroke humankind's ego, but in a metaphysical sort of way, I just think it's so awesome that we as humans have evolved to a point where we can learn about, understand, and appreciate our own evolutionary history, and make such amazing discoveries like that of Tiktaalik.
I'm sure Tiktaalik and its contemporaries trudged ashore and were just happy to have more food items to choose from, but here we are - hundreds of millions of years after that humble little creature made that leap - looking back at the animal to marvel at the bits of ourselves that we can find within it. That is just so incredible to me.
Stay brainwashed.
They better be nice to that fossil because it's probably all our great x185 millionth grandfather
XD yea. Be nice to grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand grand.+..+..+. grandfather.
the way he manipulated the head frustrates me
@@yahyataki6994 Seems like this would've bn better off as a comment of it's own there buddy
Grand to the power of 100
"if only adults in louisiana would get what kids got really quickly" hahaha 'amen' brother!
don't worry, it wont offend anyone, and neither will this very comment, because they are too stupid to ever watch a video like this :)
All the shade at evangelists 😂
The story says the mic is rolling on the floor to this day ;)
kids have open minds and see thing the way they are, until indoctrination
Tiktaalik is one of the most important discoveries ever.
I have to agree
+Pete O He hates the fossil of his x185 millionth grandfather...
+WtG Salamanders or even amphibians didn't exist when titaalik was around so no it wasn't a salamander.
Vimal Ramachandran this was since proven to be a FISH.
You are correct, Tiktaalik is a fish... *with legs*
It is *exactly* what Creationists challenged us to find: a transitional form between ancient fish and 4-legged tetrapods, and we found it.
You're welcome - glad you enjoyed it!
This is an outstanding piece of natural history.
The fact that we are came from fish excites me and makes me viscerally upset at the same time. Its amazing.
The best part is how excited he is about this fossil. He's so excited and jovial to explain it to you. Scientists are the best.
Just love to listen these stories which had huge scientific impact!!
It is - you can follow the linked video in the annotations at the end of this vid to learn more about how Tiktaalik's name (/watch?v=7xLxcD0WEXU)
"If only people in Louisiana got what preschoolers got immediatly" WHAT A GREAT ROAST! XD
Papa Legba oh no 😂 are you an evangelical?! bro you must be about as smart as a can of paint
Papa Legba I’m actually not that dumb, now what is dumb is lurking around the comments on a video you don’t even agree with so you can start a flame war with some random guy who posted like a year ago like you’re a child, maybe you should grow up and do something productive with your time? just a suggestion man
"If only adults in Louisiana would get what kids got really quickly in preschool" Hahah, come on if people still deny evolution then they are living in denial.
I believe evolution is real and is still occurring just don't believe it is how others find it to be. I believe that Darwin was correct on a lot, but I don't believe he was completely correct mainly because Darwin started with just a theory the theory evolved over time and now every one is in acceptance that it is what it is. Same with religion. We read stories and most people accept that it is what is. I am religious but love findings like this simply because it is really interesting. :) I am not one to judge a non religious person as a matter of fact I like to hear about others opinions and thoughts, makes for a good conversation. To think that we all think differently is incredible to me, I don't like to argue just discuss.
Amagora Vaughan Well, to be honest, when you compare a theory in science to the founding of religious pantheons, I couldn't disagree more. A scientific theory is not a simple, "That sounds good, let's go with it." You seem to confuse the hypothesis, or a question that begins a long road to what may or may not become a theory, with an actual theory. Charles Darwin embarked upon a journey to the Americas, South America, mostly, when studying what was his hypothesis on what became evolution. He found mounds and mounds of evidence when he voyaged to the small grouping of islands far off the coast of Ecuador called the Galapagos islands. Here, he saw different species of what we would call birds, turtles, and lizards. However, he found through his research that these different animals, take the bird for a frame of reference, were all very similar, and would be classified as the same species, if not for a few small details. These small details, Darwin would find, came about because the birds had lived on different islands from each other, or geographically split. Each island had different ecosystems of plants and shrubbery that required "specialized" beaks on the birds for each type of plant. Depending on what island the bird lived on, the bird's beaks changed. On one island, where insects burrowed into cacti, the bird's beak had to be long and thin in order for the bird to reach the insect without hurting itself. Other birds had a shorter, stronger beak in order to crack the shell of certain insects. You can read more about it by just looking up, "Darwin's Finches".
The evidence he found became what he called, the "transmutation" or more famously "origin" of species. He created a hypothesis, and after looking through his evidence he found on his journey, he, after peer-reviewing the data with colleagues over at Cambridge and Oxford, concluded that his hypothesis was supported by the evidence, and therefore, became a theory.
You place the scientific idea of the theory on the same level as religion, however, you must realize how each of these work. The founding of religious pantheons was entirely based off of sheer logic. "It rains, I do not know why it rains, therefore there must be something causing these rains. It must have something to do that is out of my control. This lack of control reminds me of the lack of control I have over other people's actions, therefore it must be another person causing these rains."
Pure logic, no evidence, nor testing. Just simple logic.
Now, this is not saying that logic is a bad thing, as the scientific method uses it as well in the creation of the hypothesis, however, the hypothesis is not the only part of the scientific method, as it was when these primitive people created their religions. Do you see what I am saying?
The scientific method goes from a logic based question, a hypothesis, through evidence, to a conclusion. That conclusion, along with peer review in order to confirm the thinking linking the evidence to the hypothesis, a theory is then formed.
The founding of religious pantheons is based entirely on the idea of logic. No evidence to support it, no peer review, no nothing. It went as far as the first step to finding a right answer, and stopped, because these were a primitive people who did not have the same instruments and thought processes as we.
You cannot look the mounds of evidence that evolution has going for it, put it on a scale with the single smiggin of an attempt to create a correct answer on the other end, and then say the scale is balanced. It is simply irrational.
Let's see how evolutionism is used to defend a "transition." Take a quick peek at Tiktaalik's fossil and have your eyes opened to the actual facts. www.google.com/search?q=tiktaalik+fossil&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=3h3LRBfeemp57M%253A%252CJfQpmsce0MgauM%252C_&usg=__r48ClG1TAIW07mlLWT9C6BOw5Yw%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj96M2C5rTaAhVO2FMKHR3mA9oQ9QEIYjAK&biw=1366&bih=637#imgrc=3h3LRBfeemp57 Notice it does not have any fossilized material for the hind end "legs", or even a fin, there. The highly fragmented frontal fins are mostly missing and going in a horizontal direction, not a vertical direction as would be needed for legs. (Frankly, the thought that some claim to see legs forming on that fossil always makes me laugh. It's knee slapping hilarious.) See any evidence - you know, what real science uses - that water breathing lungs are turning into air breathing lungs?
.
Lobe finned fish don't have legs. No fish have legs. Having a bigger pelvis and shoulder girdle, as they claim shows it evolved into you, just shows it had a bigger pelvis and shoulder girdle, i.e. minor variations such as we see constantly in nature. It doesn't show legs.
.
Though some want to convince us Tik evolved into a tetrapod like an amphibian, with the cutsey nickname of "fishapod", ichthyologists call it a lobe finned FISH. Evolutionism presents theories that have no data and ignores the real data. Don't let evo-think rob you of your common sense and common knowledge about fish. Maybe read The Emperor's New Clothes.
.
The person who discovered Tik was Neil Shubin. (He claims to have predicted its discovery but I have seen no literature supporting that claim before the find. When I ask others who believe that claim to provide documentation, they never respond.) In his book Your Inner Fish Shubin says himself that there is no way to be sure Tik was a transition of any kind. But he says that, if not, "something like it" was.
.
The evidence he presents for something like it? Zero. So, that's the big data showing you supposedly are a fish update? One incredibly fragmented, very incomplete, fossil which even its biggest supporter admits may not be a transition - while we are supposed to ignore the countless billions of fossils, and living exmples, that always show fish stay fish?
.
We have overflowing, planet-wide, data. It shows fish in the real world and in the fossils. Fish never have had legs or even parts of legs. They stay fish.
.
Reviewing the link above, I want to say something about the artistic replicas of Tik that are pictured along with the fossil. Though the actual fossil has only small, close to the body, highly fragmented frontal fins, the artistic replicas show it with long, strong, muscular leg-like structures as it makes its amazing "ascent" to land. Fictional artwork, including computer simulations which do not match the observable evidence, are consistently used to defend evoutionism.
.
Notice that one artist portrays something that looks like ground gripping, rounded, pads at the ends of the presumed legs. See any evidence for any of that in the fossil? Some replicas, including a grey one, show a tail! Even hind legs! See any such things on the fossil, which doesn't even have a back end?
.
Now, one artist's fictional, small and flat, tail could presumably slide onto land. Also, those artists who provided Tik with a snake- like tail present a scenario that makes a climb to land seem somewhat feasible. What about the tails lobe finned fish really have, however? Well, they have broad vertical tails - not exactly the kinds that would be helpful for climbs to land.
.
Let's look at what some secular scientists have had to say that disagrees with evolutionism.
.
We are told that beneficial mutations are an essential mechanism for evolution to occur, but H. J. Mueller, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on mutations, said....
"It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing -- good ones are so rare we can consider them all bad." H.J. Mueller, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 11:331.
.
Now I hasten to add that in his next sentence Mueller went on to say "Nevertheless we can infer..." to support evolutionism anyway. That's how it goes in the politically correct, fiercely self protective, orthodox world of Neo Darwinisn. If the hard fought for research data doesn't agree with the sacred cow theory, no problem - just "infer" something that goes in the exact opposite direction of what the data shows.
.
Anyway, mutations are isolated, random, events that do not build on one another like Legos, and certainly have no ability to create totally new DNA as, for ex., would be needed to turn a leg into a wing.
.
As for natural selection, it does not lead to evolution, either. What does NS select from? What is already in the genome. It shuffles pre existing information or may cause a loss of information, not the new info you would need to turn a fin into, say, a foot. That is why no matter what it selects from in a fish or bird or lizard or bacteria or monkey or tree or flower you will still have a fish, bird, lizard, bacteria, etc.
.
But, if you can, give data - not just theories presented as facts in the conveniently invisible past - that a Life Form A turned into Life Form B as the result of NS. In other words show that a species went to the next level in the Animal Kingdom (ditto for plants) a new genus. There are trillions of life forms on this planet. We're told it happened in the unverifiable past. Why don't we see any species transitioning to a new family, order, class or phylum today?
.
Let's see what some other secular scientists have to say about evolution.
.
Bowler, Peter J., Review of In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169.
"We cannot identify ancestors or 'missing links,' and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions."
.
"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution." (Nobel Prize winner Wald, George, "Innovation and Biology," Scientific American, Vol. 199, Sept. 1958, p. 100)
.
"The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do." (Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society.)
.
"Hypothesis [evolution] based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts....These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest."
(Sir Ernst Chan, Nobel Prize winner for developing penicillin)
.
On this webpage you can see Nobel Prize winning scientists, other secular scientists - including some world famous evolutionists - admitting there is no evidence for evolution. You can see them calling evolution a kind of religion, something that leads to "anti knowledge", etc. Notice how many of these secular scientists acknowledge evidence for a Creator.
freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1435562/posts
.
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed shows the politics of Neo Darwinism which harasses and expels those in academia and the media who even hint that there MIGHT be evidence for a Creator.
th-cam.com/video/4HErmp5Pzqw/w-d-xo.html
.
Anyone reading this: You are not a fish update. You were created in the very image and likeness of the Creator. He is your Father and loves you and wants you to know Him, and love Him too. Why trade in those fantastic truths for a bunch of mumbo jumbo pseudo science that even secular scientists can't get consensus on? Rhetorical Q.
LoricaLady You do realise that it not having hind legs is irrelevant because we know from close relatives it would be only using its front legs?
LoricaLady Also why are you calling them evolutionists? The correct term would be paleontologist as their job is to study organisms and fit them into the evolutionary tree.
Crazy to think that one of our extremely-distant ancestors from millions of years ago is helping answer the questions of our origin.
We seen the display of the fossil cast and model ( that Neil was next to in this video) in the Field Museum in Chicago. I stood in awe by what it represents. Even more so than the great T-rex Sue.
***** That's pretty damn arrogant. Let me guess, you're a history-denying theist and this discovery is yet more proof of the fallacy of your religion. You think calling this flat-bodied animal with a neck and wrist bones a "fish" some how refutes all the peer-reviewed testable evidence supporting it? Take a biology class and quit wasting our time.
Beautiful! The book inner fish is a very good read!
Wow! That's our ancestor's skull in your hand...!!
Thank you. Wonderful presentation!
Completely fascinating!
Brilliant, eye-opening video! Thanks RI :)
Thanks for the video! Very interesting :)
I'm one of the few Adults in Louisiana that does believe in evolution. I feel like i 'm surrounded by idiots.
So I heard they hate Pokemanz or So I heard they hate Spor3
+ZentoZekto XD
only at home.
Offending people is not the way to teach them.
Well, did you know that Tiktaalik has been blown out of the water? He's not the poster fishapod any longer. All of Neil Shubin's predictions were completely wrong. Maybe those Louisiana idiots are smarter than you after all.
Nothing says "My theory is probably correct" better than making an improbable prediction and then finding it to be true!
Amazing! I'm currently reading his book, very exciting stuff!
Stay brainwashed.
Amazing find!
Thanks! Hope you enjoy our videos.
He came to my school and talked about this, it was awesome!
This is very Amazing
It's better than win in a lottery. It's gorgeous!
Thank you for mind-blowing me, love it
anyone hear know of a documentary released on animal planet or discovery....wherein the main premise of the documentary was to show the evolution between two species that were predator and prey...it started off in the ocean where the two species were both aquatic(one I know is a fish, it had a dark blue tint and yellow speckling on it) as the species evolved they'd show the different ways on how the species adapted to counter or evade the other....one of the species eventually evolved into tiktaalik(cause the 2 species ended up evolving onto land and I remember the shape of tiktaalik) at one point it showed that tiktaalik was caught on a drought or something cause it was waiting for the water to rise back up, but it got eaten by some dinosaur as the water was rising....thats the gist of what I remember of the documentary...would really like to watch it again
Fascinating specimen.
Due to the odds being grossly against an animal being fossilized and being recovered, plus the expected rarity of the organisms that start a new species, it is not unexpected that the fossil record is incomplete.
The Cambrian Explosion is overstated, we have some fossils from the end of the period but poorer record of fossil from earlier but we do have some and they do show precursors from some millions of years before the classic fossils from the explosion. The cambrian was 50 million years.
I really want to get his book on Tiktaalik. Tiktaalik is our long lost ancestor. It's thanks to him that we are here now on land!
He has a bit of a Jeff Goldblum vibe when he talks. Nonetheless great for him and for science as a whole for finding the Tiktaalik. Arguably the most influential fossil ever discovered.
Wonderful work!!! I remember when the first living Coelacanth was discovered, this is a comparable feeling- wonder! I have trouble understanding how an entire animal is extrapolated from a few bones, that's disconcerting. Brings to mind the Woody Allen movie where they are going to clone a new U. S. President from the old one's nose.
Because lungs are a primitive feature of bony fishes, seen today not only in lungfishes (the closest living fishes to tetrapods) but also in primitive ray-finned fishes such as Polypterus (reedfish) and Amia (bowfin). More derived fishes (teleosts) have turned the lung into the swimbladder. Tetrapods evolved pre-equipped with lungs.
Gills can be determined by the presence of the bony gill arches that support them (also seen in the earliest tetrapods like Acanthostega and Ichthyostega).
I don't think it was about crawling out of the ocean onto land, but more about surviving in areas that partially dried up. I'm no expert though.
Impressive stuff
right that's what i was thinking :) thanks
The model (or a copy) shown at 4:21 is in the _Evolving Planet_ exhibit in the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago. When ever I visit, I pause a moment in reverence, fascination and connection. Isn't life wonderful and exciting?
Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc.
All of you commenters should read "Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body", it's fantastic.
That sounds reasonable. Thanks.
You just gained a sub.
Via a 10 second search on Google; from Wikipedia: "Also notable are the spiracles on the top of the head, which suggest the creature had primitive lungs as well as gills. This would have been useful in shallow water, where higher water temperature would lower oxygen content."
How do you know it had lungs? Soft tissue is absent from fossils. Just curious.
That comment about Louisiana was hilarious!
On our beach walk two weeks ago we saw the carcass of a crocodile headed cylacanth like fish on the beach it had huge ribs a horn on its nose and a platypus tail. The tiktaalik is the closest thing to describe what we saw
I think the coelacanth is more interesting than a bridge species we know must have existed. The lobed fins seem like they would be predisposed to adaptation, but its maintained a stable form for such a long time.
Great discovery that represents the missing link between the fish and the amphibians. We already have a living fossil in the mudskipper fish.
"if only adults in Louisiana would get what kids got really quickly" - nice, 10/10, it reminds me of Michael Behe during Kitzmiller vs Dover case during which he has been confronted with 60 scientific publications documenting the evolution and he REJECTED EVERYTHING, saying it is not enough. It took one hour to go through the list. The jury was shocked. On the other hand, he supplied zero peer-reviewed publications to support ID. Ridicules beyond belief!
Omg the way he is handling the bone gives me anxiety.😭
Mary N don’t worry it’s only a copy
How do you gather all that specific information with a fossilized head? How do you illustrate what the creature looked like? How do you know the age if carbon14 decays around 6k years?
It's basically some sort of ancient land-fish, and it occured hundreds of millions of years ago. Pretty insane how long animals have existed & thrived on earth waaaay before humans, then they eventually just stopped existing. I think humans will end up the same way.
Humbling information here.
Q: did Tikataalick develop the foot like fings and face structure in the water or it did so after it landed ? Coz the face structure/shape is different from the fish and more like lizards
Oh and by the way, the secular scientists touted a missing link between these twos (lobefin fish and tetrapods), they called it "Titalac". Let's see what they've actually found. These are the bones that they found. With fully fledged feet.
I actually bought his book your inner fish
Stay brainwashed.
@@jamgrl38 ok boomer
@@goblinslayertf2 A debunked theory is not evidence.
Of those lucky few, most are buried and very few are actually subaerially exposed where we can get at them and of those exposed fossils, the vast majority are eroded away before we chance upon them. So it’s not surprising that the record is incomplete. It’s astounding we have as much as we do. And of that miniscule portion of dead organisms whose fossilized remains we actually discover, only a certain number will be representative of a major transitional stage.
Of that tiny number, and even smaller fraction will escape the ravages of decay and scavenging. A fraction of that fraction will actually be in a position to be fossilized and a very tiny fraction of that fraction will survive the millions of years of tectonic activity, changes in groundwater chemistry, etc.
perfeeeeecttttt
It is only assumed as you are correct soft tissue is not present, but it does not stop people from putting it forth as fact anyway, and since this find, we have found true tetrapod tracks many million years older than Tiktaalik, and even older than the kind of fish they were thought to have evolved from. The newer findings have thrown a wrench into the origin of tetrapod evolution but he will not admit this publicly.
what was that comment at 4:12 supposed to mean?
I watch this and other evolution related videos occasionally for the humor. We all need a good laugh once in a while after all, this is a mixed-up world today. These discoveries are indeed fascinating, but the ridiculous assumptions and false conclusions evolutionists arrive at keep me in stitches. I hope no one really takes this seriously...but some will because it takes all kinds.
I wanted to show this to my geology college class. Could you please make another one without the remark disparaging adults in Louisiana?
1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless;
2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed' (Gould, 1977).
if grown-up were as enthusiastic about discovery as children are we would be colonizing the cosmos by now. In our society, it feels like our culture grows incurious adults 9 out of 10 times.
This isn't the same video 😮 Since my first comment a few months ago till now, this video is different! How interesting....
The stuff they don't teach you in school
It was not until new technology for the dating of fossils was developed, in the late 1940s, that Piltdown Man came to be seriously questioned once again. In 1949, Dr Kenneth Oakley, a member of the staff at the Natural History Museum, tested the Piltdown fossils and found that the skull and jaw were not that ancient.
The above from bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/archaeology/piltdown_man_01.shtml
Time published an article for the public in 1953.
Lungs develop when aquatic animals make short trips on land. An oxygen sac that becomes as air sac which then functions as a lung. See lung fish for a current day example.
I hope you were ready for that shade thrown your way Louisiana haha
I see you guys now know how to link to TH-cam vids ;).
Of course but I'd like to know a more precise reason. What was there on the land to support this mutation over time?
Heard this weird name for the first time in Nightwish - Endless Forms Most Beautiful.
I'm trying to find out what environmental factor allowed the fish to evolve into a land animal. What was the benefit of going out of the sea?
Oxygen levels were getting lower in the sea / water at this point, I saw on another video. The lung evolved to extract oxygen from the air.
Generational development.
E.g. Those with better oxygen/air sacs can spend longer out of water making bigger trips between rivers when one is drying or spend longer finding food when the tide's out (see mudskippers for that type of behaviour). Those individuals are more likely to live longer and breed more. You can get the rest.
The Tiktaalik is our ancestor. So, we have to go worship it haha
tiktaalik isnt our direct ancestor
Just kidding with that last bit about Woody Allen, I wouldn't be able to find more than sand dollars and cockle shells, my hat is off to you guys!
Take that Ray Comfort.
To paraphrase Comfort : "Behold the creationists nightmare!"
Mackeson3 Ha ha. Yeah those bananas really keep me awake at night.
Definitely not a concern, people lie and fabricate and will continue to do so, God bless everyone.
"Even the journal noted that McIntosh's paper provided no justification for his view'
Why is it that you can never cite your sources?
I already responded to this question several post ago. I will not repeat myself. So go back and read it.
In no other science would "an unknown designer made it that way" be accepted as an explanation. You can describe a phenomenon without attempting to explain it, you can experiment with parameters of what is happening, you can hypothesize a partial explanation of what is causing the phenomenon, but you cross the line out of science when you actively invoke untestable deities into your equation. Intelligent Design is where science goes to die.
Most of these changes occured not on land, but in shallow waters. The first primitive tetrapods started to move on land when their anatomy allowed it. Why? To follow prey, to bask in the sun and other reasons. There were no terrestrial predators back then they needed to look out for (maybe with the exception of some large arthropods).
I am looking for a tiktaalik fossil replica
Be a true passion and find your own fossil! ;)
Ok just to be clear I'm looking for clarification not an argument. My question is how do we know its head articulated in the manner described and that it walked. The fossil is, well a piece of stone. Surely the head moving and walking is just a theory??
+Tim Lazenby You can tell much from the skeleton. The shape of the joints tell you how flexible it was. On the bones you can see where tendons attached and from that we know hov big/strong certain muscle groups were.
That was a total of 28 papers. Not to mention that you cited a paper that used an epigenetic inference model, and your own paper stated, very little is understood concerning epigenetics as it applies to evolution. You read the title, but did not understand the paper or the fact that epigenetics and soft inheritance are some of the many challenges to the neo Darwinian paradigm.
Well, let's evaluate the current scenario of tetrapod evolution to see if it is coherent & plausible.
The Berkeley site says this:
*"When we get past coelacanths and lungfishes on the evogram, we find a series of fossil forms that lived between about 390 and 360 million years ago during the Devonian Period. During this interval, this lineage of fleshy-finned organisms moved from the water to the land."*
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_04
So is this plausible before we get into technicalities? Well, this entire scenario is now *blown out of the water.* Here is an excerpt from the Nature paper that documents the discovery of tetrapod tracks millions of years BEFORE the entire fish to tetrapod scenario described above by Berkeley Evolution 101. And I am happy to report that these tracks were made in the *Holy Cross* Mountains. ;)
*"Muddy Tetrapod Origins"*
*"Now, however, Niedzwiedzki et al. lob a grenade into Neil's picture. They report the stunning discovery of tetrapod trackways with distinct digit imprints from Zachelmie, Poland, that are UNAMBIGUOUSLY DATED TO THE LOWERMOST EIFELIAN (397 MILLION YEARS AGO). This site (an old quarry) has yielded a dozen trackways made by several individuals that ranged from about 0.l5 to 2.5 metres in total length, and numerous isolated footprints found on fragments of scree. THE TRACKS PREDATE THE OLDEST TETRAPOD SKELETAL REMAINS BY 18 MYR AND, MORE SURPRISINGLY, THE EARLIEST ELPISTOSTEGALIAN FISHES BY ABOUT 10 YRS. (Philippe Janvier & Gaël Clément, "Muddy Tetrapod Origins," Nature463:40-41 (January 7, 2010).) www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7277/full/463040a.html
Here is another excerpt from a related article in Nature:
*"Here we present well-preserved and SECURELY DATED TETRAPOD TRACKS from Polish marine tidal flat sediments of early Middle Devonian (Eifelian stage) age that are approximately 18 million years older than the earliest tetrapod body fossils and 10 million years earlier than the oldest elpistostegids. They force a radical reassessment of the timing, ecology and environmental setting of the fish-tetrapod transition, as well as the completeness of the body fossil record."*
www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7277/abs/nature08623.html
So this evolutionary story is completely wrong, incoherent, not plausible and so far, there is nothing to replace it.
www.evolutionnews.org/2010/01/tiktaalik_blown_out_of_the_wat030621.html
+Ruebezahl He was just saying how creatures had already ventured on to land even before titaalik
That's a very rare find , please handle it carefully.
Tiktaalik...is that an Inuit name?
Have you heard of Erik jarvik ? What do you think of his work ? I think he died in 1998
Proto-Wrist! Yeah!
It also seeks to counter the materialistic interpretation of science by demonstrating that life and the universe are the products of intelligent design and by challenging the materialistic conception of a self-existent, self-organizing universe and the Darwinian view that life developed through a blind and purposeless process.
Part of the mission statement from the Discovery Institute's own web site
I was kinda hoping since they made the claim... the could back it up... If I had to research every unknown I came across I'd never have time to comment about it on TH-cam :)
I like when Neil deGrasse Tyson says Tiktaalik
I first learned of Tiktaalik from the Animal Armageddon series.
how do they know it had both lungs and gills?
Unfortunately, there are. AiG seems to seek them out. A good example is Dr Jason Lisle, who got his doctorate from Colorado University. He spent his time there writing a thesis that assumed billions of years of age in the universe; no one at CU suspected he was a creationist until after he'd gotten his doctorate.
do you mean like one animal would develop the air sack from these trips or do you mean a generational development that would take ages?